Other pages tagged with "&#039;plebeian studies&#039;"http://www.rc.umd.edu/taxonomy/term/26307/all
enAnne Janowitz, Lyric and Labour in the Romantic Traditionhttp://www.rc.umd.edu/reviews-blog/anne-janowitz-lyric-and-labour-romantic-tradition
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><div id="caption" class="alignleft" width="239">Anne Janowitz, <em>Lyric and Labour in the Romantic Tradition</em>. Cambridge Studies in Romanticism, no. 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. xii + 278pp. illus. $64.95 (Hdbk; ISBN: 0-521-57259-2).</div>
<h3>Reviewed by<br />
Michael Scrivener<br />
Wayne State University</h3>
<p>The question with which Janowitz begins her very stimulating consideration of Romantic literature"Can we extricate ourselves enough from romantic presuppositions to produce a history of romanticism?"does not lead her to an epistemologically oriented inquiry under the sign of either Derrida or Althusser or Foucault. Her study is neither a self-conscious performance of a Romantic and futile attempt to escape a Romantic logic (deconstruction), nor a strenuous act of intellectual disciplining whereby the wheat of scientific knowledge can be separated from the chaff of ideology (ideological critique). Rather, she draws a new map of Romanticism that includes theseand otherrecent approaches within a "unified field" whose coordinates are determined ultimately by "debate" and "unrelieved tension" (1).</p>
<p>The particular debate her book highlights is the one provoked by the literary form of the lyric as it became the most prestigious genre in nineteenth-century constructions of the canon. As defined by John Stuart Mill and Harold Bloom, the Romantic lyric has a deeply subjective, "unencumbered lyric speaker" who aspires to transcendence (7). Janowitz points to the concurrent existence of a communitarian lyric informed by "collective, embedded experience" (7). The latter has been woefully neglected until recently, but Janowitz's book does more than make a huge contribution to one of the recent trends in Romantic studies that has been called "plebeian studies," that is, the recovery and revaluation of the mostly ignored popular literature, especially its radical varieties, of late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century London (4). Janowitz dialectically situates the communitarian lyric in conversation with the individualistic lyric, carrying the dialogue between "the rhetorics of custom and reason" into the twentieth century with the Anglo-Communist poetry of Auden and the English miners' poetry of 198485.</p>
<p>The book's first part, "A Dialectic of Romanticism," deploys the familiar ideological dichotomy of Burkean custom and Painite reason to develop a nuanced contrast between individualistic and communitarian lyrics in the Romantic period. Using the well-known example of individualistic lyricism, "Tintern Abbey," and drawing upon the feminist and New Historicist critiques of its strategies of transcendence, Janowitz contrasts this instance of self-possession with contemporaneous lyrics that have socially embedded speakers, such as Wordsworth's own "We Are Seven," Joanna Baillie's "A Summer's Day," and Anna Barbauld's "Washing Day." She rescues the "customary consciousness" in Wordsworth's <em>Lyrical Ballads</em> from a totalizing critique of Wordsworth's bad individualism. The extended discussion of Wordsworth in terms of the conflicting logics of individualistic and customary tendencies in the <em>Lyrical Ballads</em> is one of the finest things in the book. Janowitz is able to citeand in the second part discuss in detailChartists who appropriated a strain of Wordsworth's poetry that was deemed "democratic" (43). Wordsworth is "a carrier of customary tradition of the common life, the narrator of a tradition, as well as the model of the unencumbered individual" (4546). Of course in this particular instance she is following the interpretive path marked by E. P. Thompson in his commentary on Wordsworth.</p>
<p>Another fine feature of the first part is a recovery of radical writers such as Thomas Spence, George Dyer (whose 1802 essays that linked poetry's energies with political freedom are saved from oblivion), and John Thelwall in order to describe the distinctively Romantic interaction between popular and polite kinds of literature. Chapter three is especially innovative in its discussion of plebeian writers like Spence, Allen Davenport, Robert Fair, and E. J. Blandford. The tension that is Romanticism at this time is between the "interventionist poetics" of writers such as Spence and the "private individual voice" celebrated by Mill. Spence, an agrarian radical anticipating socialism, plays a rightfully central role in her discussion of Romantic lyricism for his mediating role between customary oral culture and rational print culture, and his sense of the land as principally the instrument by which people's bodies will be fed, not a backdrop for the meditations of a solitary consciousness. Appropriately inserted into the discussion of communitarian lyricism is Shelley's <em>Mask of Anarchy</em>, whose ideological affiliations are more with plebeian rather than Godwinian forms of radicalism; her reading of the <em>Mask</em> highlights the communitarian aspects of the poem in an unprecedented way.</p>
<p>The book's second part, "The Interventionist Poetics in the Tradition of Romanticism," goes from Allen Davenport and Chartist poetry to W. J. Linton and William Morris. Romanticism, then, is not just a period concept for Janowitz but a "persistent" literary tendency (2). Chapters four and six on Davenport, which are unaware of my "Shelley and Radical Artisan Poetry" (<em>Keats-Shelley Journal</em> 42 [1993]: 2236), highlight a radical poet who was active in the Regency and well into the Chartist period as well. I would have liked a more detailed discussion of Davenport's ambitious volume, <em>The Muse's Wreath</em> (1827), but the analysis of the political satire <em>Kings</em> (1819) handles the issue of poetic form expertly in its comparison with Blake's <em>Jerusalem</em> (12324). Davenport's poetic ambition as it was stimulated by exposure to Cooke's <em>Pocket Edition of Select English Poets</em> (London, 17941804, 46 vols.) is not occasion for ideological dismissal of a naïf deluded by bourgeois individualism. Rather, Janowitz claims that the "idea that poetic vocation merely emulates the literary elite rather than being part of an important discourse of self-actualisation within the radical movement underestimates both the practical and the utopian power of lyric intervention" (122).</p>
<p>In chapter five Janowitz shows how poetry for the Chartists was not ornamental but integral to the movement's awareness of itself and its possibilities. She illustrates the absurdity of the middle-class depiction by Carlyle, Gaskell, and Disraeli of Chartists as culturally mute. In the poetry columns of the <em>Northern Star</em> and elsewhere, Chartists were energetically expressive as they fashioned a lyricism that appropriated the Romantic meditative mode without individualistic isolation.</p>
<p>The discussion in chapter six of the conflicting models of poetry written by the Chartists Thomas Cooper"aspiring autodidact"and Ernest Jones"déclassé gentleman"is fascinating for revealing ultimate triumph of the "hegemony of liberalism" (190). Liberal individualism also shadowed the efforts of W. J. Linton, a remarkable latter-day Blakean discussed in chapter seven. The hero of Janowitz's study is William Morris, who carries into Marxist self-awareness the prior examples of the communitarian and Chartist writers. Her analysis of <em>The Pilgrims of Hope</em> (188586) explicitly echoes E. P. Thompson's study of Morris, in which he linked Romanticism with Morris's Marxism, but departs from Thompson in finding the poem successful. Thompson's reading saw only a liberal individualism in the poem's Romantic effects, but Janowitz convincingly demonstrates the communitarian Romantic elements of the poem.</p>
<p>Janowitz's book is valuable for a number of reasons: as a contribution to plebeian studies, especially highlighting Thomas Spence and Allen Davenport; as a description of the radical legacy in Chartist and working-class writing of Shelley, Byron and Wordsworth, who were available for cultural appropriation; as an extended discussion of the social problematic of individualism and left-wing communitarianism as it works itself out in poetry and poetics; as a rescue of Wordsworth's communitarianism (Shelley's was not really in need of rescuing); as a creative use of E.P. Thompson's historiography and writing on Romanticism; as an innovative treatment of "Romanticism" in relation to the most current theoretical and research developments; and finally as an act of politically committed scholarship that is respectful but appropriately critical of the radical tradition with which she is in deep sympathy. There is throughout the study a careful and sensitive attention to poetic form as it is related to political and social agency. I found, however, her use of the contrast between the communitarian "four-beat" measure of oral culture with the print-culture and individualistic iambic pentameter sometimes mechanistic. John Clare's poetry undoubtedly is close to oral culture but the four-beat norm does not characterize the bulk of his poetry. The conceptual category, "interventionist," is both provocatively stimulating and heavy with discredited notions of artistic conformity. In her interpretive hands, the interventionist poetics are capacious, but one still wonders how far the injunction against liberal individualism goes. Oscar Wilde's <em>Soul of Man Under Socialism</em> (1891) discriminated between economic individualism, which it repudiated absolutely, and artistic individualism, which it celebrated, yet one cannot characterize Wilde's oeuvre accurately as self-possessing and transcendent; it is rather radically contingent and socially embedded. So where does that leave us? Wilde needs to be put in dialogue with Morris, and to do such a thing would be in the spirit of Janowitz's book.</p>
</div></div></div><section class="field field-name-field-volume-and-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Volume and Issue:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/reviews-blog-categories/vol-3-no-2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vol. 3 No. 2</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-authored-by-secondary- field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Authored by (Secondary):&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/person/scrivener-michael">Scrivener, Michael</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-field-resource-index field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Resource:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Reviews</div></div></section><section class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-3 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/tags/anne-janowitz" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Anne Janowitz</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/tags/michael-scrivener" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michael Scrivener</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1060" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">lyric</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/tags/plebeian-studies" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">&#039;plebeian studies&#039;</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/tags/chartism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Chartism</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-person-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Person:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/thomas-spence" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Thomas Spence</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/e-p-thompson" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">E. P. Thompson</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/michael-scrivener" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michael Scrivener</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/anna-barbauld" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Anna Barbauld</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/allen-davenport" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Allen Davenport</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/joanna-baillie" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Joanna Baillie</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/harold-bloom" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Harold Bloom</a></li></ul></section>Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:33:55 +0000Jeffrey N. Cox47638 at http://www.rc.umd.eduKevin Gilmartin, Print Politics: The Press and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-Century England.http://www.rc.umd.edu/reviews-blog/kevin-gilmartin-print-politics-press-and-radical-opposition-early-nineteenth-century
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden view-mode-fulltext"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><div id="caption" class="alignleft" width="239">Kevin Gilmartin, <em>Print Politics: The Press and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-Century England.</em> Cambridge Studies in Romanticism, no. 21. Cambridge University Press, 1996. xiv + 274pp. $59.95 (Hdbk; ISBN: 0-521-49655-1).</div>
<h3>Reviewed by<br />
John Kandl<br />
Walsh University</h3>
<p>Kevin Gilmartin's <em>Print Politics: The Press and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-Century England</em> is a timely and useful exploration of the radical press's complex and often contradictory relationship to the print culture of the early nineteenth century. Gilmartin particularly focuses upon the radical movement's "style of political opposition that aimed to replace the distinction between whig and tory with a more ominous one between the people and corrupt government, and to make the press a forum for mobilizing this distinction on behalf of parliamentary reform" (1). In studies of the various political and rhetorical strategies of such radical voices as Wooler, Carlile, Wade, Cobbett and Hunt, Gilmartin explores the "contradictory energies generated by the radical effort to remain engaged with a corrupt system while resisting its influence" (196).</p>
<p>One of the strengths of this study is its conscious participation in the development of a new field of inquiry within Romantic studies, which Anne Janowitz has suggested "we might call plebeian studies" (2). This emphasis is supported in the introductory chapter, and throughout the book, in a critical engagement with an impressive range of recent studies of radical culture such as Iain McCalman's <em>Radical Underworld: Prophets, Revolutionaries and Pornographers in London, 1795–1840</em> (Cambridge University Press, 1988); Jon Klancher's <em>The Making of English Reading Audiences, 1790–1832</em> (University of Wisconsin Press, 1987); Michael Scrivener's <em>Poetry and Reform: Periodical Verse from the English Democratic Press, 1792–1824</em> (Wayne State University Press, 1992); Marcus Wood's <em>Radical Satire and Print Culture, 1790–1822</em> (Oxford University Press, 1994); Paul Thomas Murphy's <em>Toward a Working-Class Canon: Literary Criticism in British Working-Class Periodicals, 1816–1858</em> (Ohio State University Press, 1994); and of course the foundational work of Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson. Among these recent plebeian studies Gilmartin particularly emphasizes John Mee's <em>Dangerous Enthusiasm: William Blake and the Culture of Radicalism in the 1790's</em> (Oxford University Press, 1992); Leonora Nattrass's <em>William Cobbett: The Politics of Style</em> (Cambridge University Press, 1995); and David Worrall's <em>Radical Culture: Discourse, Resistance, and Surveillance, 1790-1820</em> (Wayne State University Press, 1992), "because they have described specific discourse strategies in plebeian radical culture that open it up to sophisticated literary-historical analysis" (2).</p>
<p>Chapter one addresses the cultural displacement of the radical writer and the radical press, seeing this in light of the radical press's refusal of the two-party system of Whig and Tory, reframing the debate as between a disenfranchised populace and a corrupt government. From here Gilmartin examines the complex relationship of the radical writer and his audience, especially noting the economic basis of political power, particularly ownership of property, which forced the radical writer into a substitution of language for power—a situation "fraught with tension and contradiction" (53). Gilmartin traces this tension in the arenas of public meetings and trials of radicals, as well as in the radical press's engagement with its own place in the public sphere, a place in which political discourse was often necessarily shaped by economic and production concerns.</p>
<p>Chapter two examines the sheer diversity of radical formal strategies in print. The radical weeklies "assimilated an impressive range of heterogeneous material: foreign and domestic news, market prices, reprints from books and pamphlets, transcriptions of radical meetings or trials, reports of parliamentary debates . . . and so on" (78). Most impressive here is Gilmartin's treatment of newspaper parody and "cross readings" as practiced by Wooler's <em>Black Dwarf</em>; Gilmartin usefully underscores the significance of such misleadingly humorous and "playful" formal engagements with the printed page, pointing out that "it is important to see that the struggle between print protest and state repression had long been played out at the level of form" (97). Finally, Gilmartin suggests that the very range of stylistic modes and materials presented by the radical periodical can be seen to counteract tendencies toward specialization of labor: "In a world suspended between modernization and corruption, the radical synthesis of discrete print materials and modes was a powerfully utopian project" (111).</p>
<p>Chapter three examines ways in which the trials of radicals such as Wooler, Hone, Hunt, and Cobbett ironically became powerful theatrical forums for radical discourse. The chapter is particularly strong in pointing up the ways in which the radical press made public the corrupt proceedings of the trials by printing disallowed testimonies for the defense, describing the packing of juries, and publicly decrying the unjust libel laws. Gilmartin points out the insistence upon "fact" in radical defense, and notes, with Klancher, Paine's identification of "'the surplus of power with the surplus of signs'" (148). Gilmartin links this radical insistence upon "fact" over "sign" to the prophetic dimension of radical discourse, pointing to a rhetorical equation of radical reform and revelation of divine truth. The relation of religious dissent and radical politics which emerges here is significant, though not explored in detail.</p>
<p>Chapters four, five, and the "Afterword" offer discussions of Cobbett, Hunt, and Hazlitt, respectively. The discussion of Cobbett, mainly in his capacity as editor of the radical flagship <em>The Political Examiner</em>, is most useful in its insistence that Cobbett's "work needs to be understood as a serious and systematic response to an increasingly systematic world" (159). In answer to those who have over-simplified Cobbett's radicalism, Gilmartin emphasizes Cobbett's awareness of a complex of "systems" of domination and his propensity for conceiving counter-systems in opposition. (The chapter offers a usefully comprehensive list of "systems" Cobbett had identified in the <em>Political Register</em>.) Insightfully, Gilmartin compares the material-political counter-systems of Cobbett with the systematized "mental categories" of William Blake: "Where a Blake dictionary has entries under Golgonooza, Luvah, and Reason, a Cobbett dictionary, were one to be compiled (and it would be no less useful), would have entries under Pitt, Canning, paper money, potatoes, and turnpikes" (159). While Blake, however, "did not envision an end to dialectical strife, Cobbett, by contrast, did seek to get beyond system and political dispute, in order to recover for himself and the nation a rural and domestic repose" (159). True to the study's focus upon discursive strategies and language, the chapter briefly examines Cobbett's attention to grammar as system—making good use of an unpublished paper by Peter Manning on Cobbett's <em>Grammar of the English Language</em> (1818), a book intended as a grammar-primer for schoolboys, but which was subtly informed by Cobbett's politics. Manning notes that Cobbett's linguistic theories were "grounded in a 'simple intentionalism' that encouraged readers, writers, and speakers to seize control of their words" (169). Following this, considering Cobbett's prose, Gilmartin notes a dynamic relationship between "situations outside language . . . and language about those situations" (177). The treatment of Cobbett's <em>Rural Rides</em> in this chapter indicates clearly the kind of "rural and domestic repose" Cobbett may have aimed for—but never settled for: "Cobbett inevitably rose from his fireplace and returned to circulation and to opposition" (194). Throughout this significant chapter, Gilmartin convincingly counters readings of Cobbett as "unstructured" and "impressionistic"—and Cobbett emerges, with all his contradictory energies, as something of a paradigmatic force within radical print politics of the age.</p>
<p>While Cobbett, however, can usefully stand as an exemplar of the radical press, the placement of Leigh Hunt in this declared "plebeian" study is less convincing. Gilmartin aptly traces a progression in Hunt from radical writer to Hunt's self-declared "new position" as an early Victorian "ministerialist," but the problem here is in considering Hunt a radical on the order of Cobbett or Wooler in the first place. Throughout the study Gilmartin has departed usefully from Jürgen Habermas's distinction of the liberal from the radical public sphere—equating (with historical evidence) the words "liberal" and "radical." But Habermas' distinction can be preserved in the treatment of Hunt and Hazlitt. Both are reformers, but neither can be firmly linked to the plebeian, radical reform movement. In fact they both, at times, seem distrustful of this movement. As Gilmartin points out, considering Hazlitt's anxiety over questions of "legitimacy" and merit, his prose is remarkable for "the way an anxiety about merit was channelled from politics into culture" (229). It may be more useful to follow up on this insight and to consider Hunt and Hazlitt within another register of print reform—a register which addresses the dominant or official culture not in a polarized confrontation, but in a more insidious way—in the "polite" vocabulary of "educated" discourse on aesthetic, religious, moral, and political matters, all the while intentionally presenting a value system directly counter to that of the dominant sphere. This is a reform of the vocabulary of public discourse itself, and a challenge to the various ways in which "official" authority is represented and legitimized culturally. While Hunt and Hazlitt do not serve the more overtly "plebeian" emphases of the book, which are less problematically represented in the thorough treatments of Carlile, Wooler, Wade, and Cobbett, however, the analysis of Hunt and Hazlitt in the context of this study is welcome indeed—and Gilmartin is especially persuasive in his treatments of their class-anxieties and ways their politics informs their prose. The subtitle of the "Afterword"—"William Hazlitt – a radical critique of radical opposition?"—emphasizes a significant question concerning both of these figures.</p>
<p>One final, editorial consideration: in a book which is so well-researched and which so usefully furthers an important new field of inquiry, the lack of a bibliography is regrettable, but perhaps understandable in light of practical exigencies of academic publishing these days. At any rate, Gilmartin makes up for this with a detailed commentary on pertinent works in his introductory chapter. Bibliography or no, this is a profoundly important plebeian study which will prove indispensable to scholars and historians of the period, and of print culture in general.</p>
</div></div></div><section class="field field-name-field-volume-and-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Volume and Issue:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/reviews-blog-categories/vol-2-no-2" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vol. 2 No. 2</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-field-authored-by-secondary- field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Authored by (Secondary):&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/person/kandl-john">Kandl, John</a></div></div></section><section class="field field-name-field-resource-index field-type-entityreference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Parent Resource:&nbsp;</h2><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Reviews</div></div></section><section class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-3 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/taxonomy/term/826" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Kevin Gilmartin</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/tags/john-kandl" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Kandl</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/tags/radicalism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">radicalism</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2182" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">print culture</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/tags/plebeian-studies" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">&#039;plebeian studies&#039;</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/tags/press" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">press</a></li></ul></section><section class="field field-name-opencalais-person-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above view-mode-fulltext"><h2 class="field-label">Person:&nbsp;</h2><ul class="field-items"><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/leigh-hunt" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Leigh Hunt</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/paul-thomas-murphy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Paul Thomas Murphy</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/william-blake" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">William Blake</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/marcus-wood" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Marcus Wood</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/raymond-williams" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Raymond Williams</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/anne-janowitz" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Anne Janowitz</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/william-hazlitt" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">William Hazlitt</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/john-kandl" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">John Kandl</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/michael-scrivener" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Michael Scrivener</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/jon-klancher" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Jon Klancher</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/ep-thompson" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">E.P. Thompson</a></li><li class="field-item odd"><a href="/category/person/william-cobbett" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">William Cobbett</a></li><li class="field-item even"><a href="/category/person/kevin-gilmartin" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Kevin Gilmartin</a></li></ul></section>Mon, 17 May 1999 15:15:22 +0000Jeffrey N. Cox47630 at http://www.rc.umd.edu